quote:

Originally posted by CelticNewAger:

quote:

Stem Cell in of itself does have to do with science, but the question of whether it is murder, and should receive government funding is ethics and thus philosophy.

It's only a question of murder to those who make it. To make stem cell succesful, only science is needed.

But government decisions can't be based on faith.

If most everyone in the country believes it to be so, yes they can. If decisions can't be made on faith, it follows that they can't be made on the lack thereof, so what on earth are you going to make them with?

quote:

Originally posted by riskbreaker86:
I am not religious, yet my ethics are strong...yet I don't see stem cell research as killing. It's just taking cells from dead fetuses in order to create cures to help those who are suffering. The only problem I can see that you may have is the event of a mother deciding to have an abortion in order to sell the fetus? please correct me if there is something I am missing.

quote:

Yes, I'm against embryonic stem cell because it's against my god.

I must have missed this chapter

never having read the bible you will have to correct me, doesn't it say man should help others? I know Islam is based on helping those in poverty and those suffering. But thou shalt not kill? what if the person is already dead? thou shalt not farm stem cells from the body of thy dead fetus? hm.

The rule is "thou shalt not kill or do anything like unto it." Go ahead and experiment with the ones you have, but you'll need more, sooner or later, and that will only encourage abortion, which I believe to be murder.

quote:

Stem Cell in of itself does have to do with science, but the question of whether it is murder, and should receive government funding is ethics and thus philosophy.

It's only a question of murder to those who make it. To make stem cell succesful, only science is needed.

But government decisions can't be based on faith.

I am not religious, yet my ethics are strong...yet I don't see stem cell research as killing. It's just taking cells from dead fetuses in order to create cures to help those who are suffering. The only problem I can see that you may have is the event of a mother deciding to have an abortion in order to sell the fetus? please correct me if there is something I am missing.

quote:

Yes, I'm against embryonic stem cell because it's against my god.

I must have missed this chapter

never having read the bible you will have to correct me, doesn't it say man should help others? I know Islam is based on helping those in poverty and those suffering. But thou shalt not kill? what if the person is already dead? thou shalt not farm stem cells from the body of thy dead fetus? hm.

quote:

It has everything to do with science. This is perhaps one of the largest breakouts in science.

You're against it because it defies your God.

quote:
Ethics is the branch of philosophy called "what we should do." I don't know about you, but my religious beliefs have a ton to do with what I do.



Stem-cell research is not philosophy. It's science. Therefore, the two shall remain apart and not mix.

quote:
My religion shapes my life, therefore, I need to put it into everything, including...nay, especially...ethics.



Exactly. But it doesn't shape societie's, in fact, religion has done nothing to society but brainwash them, forged man to give up his ability to think deeply, lead people into killing each other, and creating tyrants "in the name of God".

Stem Cell in of itself does have to do with science, but the question of whether it is murder, and should receive government funding is ethics and thus philosophy.

Yes, I'm against embryonic stem cell because it's against my god.

I cannot leave my religion behind when I make opinions on government decisions. That'd be like leaving behind my brain, my life and my soul. There is separation of church and state, but if the people all want it, even based on religion...tough beans.

It has everything to do with science. This is perhaps one of the largest breakouts in science.

You're against it because it defies your God.

quote:

Ethics is the branch of philosophy called "what we should do." I don't know about you, but my religious beliefs have a ton to do with what I do.

Stem-cell research is not philosophy. It's science. Therefore, the two shall remain apart and not mix.

quote:

My religion shapes my life, therefore, I need to put it into everything, including...nay, especially...ethics.

Exactly. But it doesn't shape societie's, in fact, religion has done nothing to society but brainwash them, forged man to give up his ability to think deeply, lead people into killing each other, and creating tyrants "in the name of God".

quote:

Originally posted by riskbreaker86:

quote:

The people that could be saved by Stem-cell will simply get to the Kingdoms of God. These children cannot get to the Kingdoms of God until they have gone through the physical act of having a physical body. Miscarried babies, the mentally retarded and children who die under the age of eight get it free...the whole deal. But aborted embryos...they haven't had the chance of life, and a physical body.

religion doesn't belong in a discussion of ethics, for it is way too hypocritical and has no counter-argument, simply because while discussing science it leaves no room for god...the evidence against a god being so strong while the evidence for god being....well flimsy to say the least.

Please keep the conversation a part of your own ethics and beliefs, whether they be formed by religion or not.

Religion does belong here. This doesn't have anything to do with science.

Ethics is the branch of philosophy called "what we should do." I don't know about you, but my religious beliefs have a ton to do with what I do.

There isn't evidence against God, simply not a lot for Him. But there's no evidence against Him.

I will put my religion into what I darn well please. The reason that I'm against stem cell is because of my religiously based definition of murder. My religion shapes my life, therefore, I need to put it into everything, including...nay, especially...ethics.

I would do it, I guess. I think that my mom would willingly sacrafice herself for the good of the group.

When faced with the death of a relative versus the deaths of many faceless strangers, I'd have to sacrifice the one. Yes, it would hurt, a lot, but to do otherwise is selfish. All for the greater good. Of course, I'd first search for a loophole to save everyone involved, but if there wasn't such a thing...well, you know what I'd do.

Heres a little teaser for you...

you get lost deep in the woods and eventually come across a tribe, they have 10 hostages and then take you captive also. They decide to have a little fun at your expense (they are horrid people).

Here is your dilema, you have a choice either:

-they will kill all 10 hostages, or
-you have to kill one hostage and free the others.

if this doesnt trouble you how about,

-the hostage you have to kill is your mother.


What do you do? this is basic utalitarianism, kill your mother for the greater good? this is the argument john stuart mill would give, what about you? its a basic theory of morals and whether we should sacrifise the few for the many.

I would die to save a thousand people.

quote:

The people that could be saved by Stem-cell will simply get to the Kingdoms of God. These children cannot get to the Kingdoms of God until they have gone through the physical act of having a physical body. Miscarried babies, the mentally retarded and children who die under the age of eight get it free...the whole deal. But aborted embryos...they haven't had the chance of life, and a physical body.

religion doesn't belong in a discussion of ethics, for it is way too hypocritical and has no counter-argument, simply because while discussing science it leaves no room for god...the evidence against a god being so strong while the evidence for god being....well flimsy to say the least.

Please keep the conversation a part of your own ethics and beliefs, whether they be formed by religion or not.

Yes, it does make it sound sad to reverse it to one living, one thousand dead, but I can't bear the idea of a innocent child who hasn't even experienced life, (and they would know the difference. Remember, I believe in premortal life and after-life) to save the life of someone, though perhaps their life hasn't been ideal, and perhaps it'd be better if they could live, but still they'd had the chance, and the fetus hasn't.

Please realize that this is a hard choice...a very hard choice. It really pains me either way, but I've made a decision. The child hasn't had a chance. We all get the right to mortal bodies. Perhaps, it's my perspective of things. A mortal body is a freebie, (unless you're a spirit of Satan, which no one on this board are). Eternal Life is a freebie. You don't have to do anything for it. These people will live on in Heaven, (unless they are one of the very, very select few being sent to outer darkness).

These children just need a chance. Mortal life is a very, very small phase in life. It will come to an end, but existance will not. Death is just a portal out of the darkness of the world. When God takes us through that portal, it's not the end. It's just like highschool, or college...it's important, but after it's over, it's not the end.

The people that could be saved by Stem-cell will simply get to the Kingdoms of God. These children cannot get to the Kingdoms of God until they have gone through the physical act of having a physical body. Miscarried babies, the mentally retarded and children who die under the age of eight get it free...the whole deal. But aborted embryos...they haven't had the chance of life, and a physical body.

quote:

And who was that very wise man?

Killing one to save a thousand is just barbaric. It's animal. The people that die, at least they have a life-time.

Think of it from the point of view of the aborted fetus.

Killing one to save a thousand is not barbaric!!! Okay, it is not ideal, but it is as damn close as you're going to get. Reverse it- one living and a thousand dying is a thousand times worse. I would think that even as a pacifist you could appreciate that. Killing is justafiable when more would die if nothing was done than action was taken.

Think about it from the point of a fetus? Okay, here I go....

You know what? Not a lot is coming through considering that fetuses can't think. *GASP* And if I were a special fetus that could think and was aware of this situation, I would want to sacrifice myself for stem cell research.

And the people that die at least they had a life??? Don't you see that makes it even worse to let them die for the sake of a fetus who has never lived? You can't miss what you haven't experienced.


And the wise man was Spock, if you must know.

Ya, I'm still for it... I'm seeing the potential good outweighing the bad... But that's just me..

If I had a crippling disease and fatal disease curable only by the technology resulting from stem cell research, I'd think exactly the same way. I have loved ones who are in that position, and they're still against embryonic stem-cell. It's selfish to kill someone to save yourself, and I'd never do it.

If any objecters to stem cell research found out they had a crippling and fatal disease curable only by the technology resulting from stem cell research then they would have a sudden change of heart.

quote:

It will be an "added bonus" to aborting.

perhaps it will be an 'added bonus' to miscarriage? the death of your child resulting in saving the lives of millions of others.

Think about it, look at those suffering from Alzheimers, Parkınsons or MS, in horrific strife or pain each day, fearing each day brings them closer to a painful death, do you REALLY think that these people shouldn't be helped? I don't care if embryos are used in this way, they are benefitting others, and I would detest anyone calling me inhumane, because this is a very humane feeling and has humane goals...to save the lives of people suffering from previously uncurable diseases.

quote:

But I see using aborted embryos as murder.

I see watching people suffer, not trying to help them live, as murder.

quote:

Originally posted by NickJ:

quote:

But I see using aborted embryos as murder.

Wait. I'm confused... If the embryos are aborted than how can it be murder to research the already dead embryos...so confused...I need some sleep (I'm going to go to bed here soon, things just are clicking with me, but I wanted to post because I'm leaving for a few days tomorrow morning...)

It's encouraging abortion, that's what I don't like. It will be an "added bonus" to aborting. Even if you do succeed with stem-cell, if it will be as wonderful as you're making it out to be, you'll have to keep aborting them, and aborting them, until abortion becomes something like being an organ donor.

quote:

But I see using aborted embryos as murder.

Wait. I'm confused... If the embryos are aborted than how can it be murder to research the already dead embryos...so confused...I need some sleep (I'm going to go to bed here soon, things just are clicking with me, but I wanted to post because I'm leaving for a few days tomorrow morning...)

quote:

Originally posted by clpo13:
I don't really understand the opposition to stem cell research. I mean, it has the potential to save many lives, and you're whining about the possible loss of a few? A very wise man once said "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

And who was that very wise man?

Killing one to save a thousand is just barbaric. It's animal. The people that die, at least they have a life-time.

Think of it from the point of view of the aborted fetus. This is stupid at first,but bear with me. It's like the thread suggesting that people would start saying heterosexuality is a sin.